http://www.consortiumnews.com/2005/071805.html

makes a lot of sense, and exposes some of the lies the neocons have been pushing

Thanks.  I booked mark that to read it more carefully.  But Republicans don't lie because they believe in Jesus, and Christians don't tell lies.  Robert Novak and Karl Rove are very good Christians, you know.
:D

Nothing's gonna happen to Karl Rove, as much as I hate to admit it. He's just too slick. I almost admire him just for his sheer brilliance.

This is where the inconsistancy of people always puzzles me.

There are people who look at one politician and perjury, and say "ignore it, it is not important".  Then they look at the same charge against another, and say "Hang him out to dry".

Myself, I say that if he is guilty, he should pay the price.  I do not care if he is Karl Rove or Bill Clinton.  Perjury is a crime, and a felony.  But why are people screaming now, when in an earlier case they screamed for it to be ignored?

At least be consistant.  Do not let blind ideology be the basis for if you think somebody should be prosecuted or exonerated.

This is where the inconsistancy of people always puzzles me.

There are people who look at one politician and perjury, and say "ignore it, it is not important".  Then they look at the same charge against another, and say "Hang him out to dry".

Myself, I say that if he is guilty, he should pay the price.  I do not care if he is Karl Rove or Bill Clinton.  Perjury is a crime, and a felony.  But why are people screaming now, when in an earlier case they screamed for it to be ignored?

At least be consistant.  Do not let blind ideology be the basis for if you think somebody should be prosecuted or exonerated.

They're afraid the entire phony operation might unravel if Rove goes.  If they keep the Dems banging away at Rove, the other crooks can carry on unabated!

Some retired CIA agents have come out to say that what Rove did could set back covert operations
years, as well as jeopardize the lives of people(many innocent) who were in any way acquainted
with Plame.  Rove new what he was doing and he did it to fit his own agenda.  Now we will see if
bush has the cohones to be a commander in chief(a moot question to many of us).

Some retired CIA agents have come out to say that what Rove did could set back covert operations
years, as well as jeopardize the lives of people(many innocent) who were in any way acquainted
with Plame.  Rove new what he was doing and he did it to fit his own agenda.  Now we will see if
bush has the cohones to be a commander in chief(a moot question to many of us).

That don't make no nevermind!  As long as they keep cutting taxes for millionaires everything else can go to H-E double toothpicks!

Myself, I say that if he is guilty, he should pay the price. I do not care if he is Karl Rove or Bill Clinton. Perjury is a crime, and a felony. But why are people screaming now, when in an earlier case they screamed for it to be ignored?



Who are you talking about exactly?  The Left Wing Conspiracy in general, or specific politicians?  I know I didn't pay much attention to the Clinton thing because I figured whatever consenting adult he had sex with was between him and his wife.  I'm not sure about the purjery thing.  Was that from him saying he didn't have sex with her?  If that's it, that's a weak case.  It depends on what you mean by 'have sex'.  It seems like he was very careful with his words on purpose, which might be evasive or word playing, but that's the point.  If he wanted to lie, he would have said, "I never had any sex contact of any type with her."  But he was being a lawyer.  You could think that's sleazy, but that's not purjery.  Plus I can see how its easy to justify being evasive when you figure its nobodys business anyway who you sleep with or get BJs from.  Not to drege all that up again.

Anyway, Tom Delay is prolly happy the heat is off him for a while.  And then if confirmations get really contriversial, the press will forget all about Rove too.

Who are you talking about exactly?  The Left Wing Conspiracy in general, or specific politicians?  I know I didn't pay much attention to the Clinton thing because I figured whatever consenting adult he had sex with was between him and his wife.  I'm not sure about the purjery thing.  Was that from him saying he didn't have sex with her?  If that's it, that's a weak case.  It depends on what you mean by 'have sex'.  It seems like he was very careful with his words on purpose, which might be evasive or word playing, but that's the point.  If he wanted to lie, he would have said, "I never had any sex contact of any type with her."  But he was being a lawyer.  You could think that's sleazy, but that's not purjery.  Plus I can see how its easy to justify being evasive when you figure its nobodys business anyway who you sleep with or get BJs from.  Not to drege all that up again.

Anyway, Tom Delay is prolly happy the heat is off him for a while.  And then if confirmations get really contriversial, the press will forget all about Rove too.

Well, at least George Bush respects the sanctity of his marriage, and that sets a good example for our kids!  So there!
;)

I'm not sure about the purjery thing.  Was that from him saying he didn't have sex with her?  If that's it, that's a weak case.  It depends on what you mean by 'have sex'.  It seems like he was very careful with his words on purpose, which might be evasive or word playing, but that's the point.  If he wanted to lie, he would have said, "I never had any sex contact of any type with her."  But he was being a lawyer.  You could think that's sleazy, but that's not purjery.  Plus I can see how its easy to justify being evasive when you figure its nobodys business anyway who you sleep with or get BJs from.  Not to drege all that up again.


Actually, the Arkansas Board of Law did not agree.  He was disbarred, and had to pay a $25,000 fine because of this case of Perjury.  He will not be able to reapply to get his law license restored until next year.  And before he can reapply, he will have to undergo a "peer review" first.

And for those that do not believe it still, he plead No Contest to charges of Perjury to the Arkansas State Law Board in 2001.  They disbarred him, revoked his license to practice law, and de-certified him to practice as a Judge.  That is in addition to his fine.

Now he still believes the fantasy that he did not commit perjury?  And once again, the question is "why ignore one case, and push hard for another"?  Remember, in events like this I could not care what party the person belongs to.  I do not care if they are Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Socialist, Fascist, Marxist, or Anarchist.  To me, a crime is a crime, and actions have consiquences.  What I am against however is partaisan attacks.

Myself, I do not care if President Clinton did a group of Teachers in the Lincoln Bedroom.  But if he lies under oath when he is being sued for a past indescretion, then he lied under oath.  All he had to do is what Hillary did, and say "I don't recall".  (Note: This was a Civil Trial, so the "5th Ammendment" plea was not open to him, that can only be done in a Criminal Trial)

Actually, the Arkansas Board of Law did not agree.  He was disbarred, and had to pay a $25,000 fine because of this case of Perjury.  He will not be able to reapply to get his law license restored until next year.  And before he can reapply, he will have to undergo a "peer review" first.

And for those that do not believe it still, he plead No Contest to charges of Perjury to the Arkansas State Law Board in 2001.  They disbarred him, revoked his license to practice law, and de-certified him to practice as a Judge.  That is in addition to his fine.

Now he still believes the fantasy that he did not commit perjury?  And once again, the question is "why ignore one case, and push hard for another"?  Remember, in events like this I could not care what party the person belongs to.  I do not care if they are Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Socialist, Fascist, Marxist, or Anarchist.  To me, a crime is a crime, and actions have consiquences.  What I am against however is partaisan attacks.

Myself, I do not care if President Clinton did a group of Teachers in the Lincoln Bedroom.  But if he lies under oath when he is being sued for a past indescretion, then he lied under oath.  All he had to do is what Hillary did, and say "I don't recall".  (Note: This was a Civil Trial, so the "5th Ammendment" plea was not open to him, that can only be done in a Criminal Trial)

Well, if nothing happens to Karl Rove, I'll bet you a nickle you won't in five years be going on and on about what should have happened to him.

Actually, the Arkansas Board of Law did not agree.  He was disbarred, and had to pay a $25,000 fine because of this case of Perjury.  He will not be able to reapply to get his law license restored until next year.  And before he can reapply, he will have to undergo a "peer review" first.


I'm not saying they agreed with me, I'm just saying personally why I don't care, and why a lot of people don't care.  I don't care if someone is EVASIVE when they get a deposition about sex with another consenting adult.  It's nobody's business anyway.  I don't care if Karl Rove is evasive or misleading about his sex life either -- it's none of my buisiness.  Public figures have the same legal rights to cheat on their spouse as anybody else.  I don't think it's right, but it's none of my buisiness.  I get more worried about people being evasive and misleading about important national security stuff when peoples lives are involved.

I'm not saying they agreed with me, I'm just saying personally why I don't care, and why a lot of people don't care.  I don't care if someone is EVASIVE when they get a deposition about sex with another consenting adult.  It's nobody's business anyway.  I don't care if Karl Rove is evasive or misleading about his sex life either -- it's none of my buisiness.  Public figures have the same legal rights to cheat on their spouse as anybody else.  I don't think it's right, but it's none of my buisiness.  I get more worried about people being evasive and misleading about important national security stuff when peoples lives are involved.


This is why I find things like this so disgustingly irritating.

Look, either perjury is wrong, or it should be ignored.  In the eyes of the law, perjury is perjury.  I do not give a damn if it is Mark Furhman, Bill Clinton, Richard Nixon, Karl Rove, or John Q. Citizen.  Either you agree to uphold and follow the law irreguardless of political affiliation, or you are simply a political hack, and anything "your side" does is allowed, while everything the "other side" does must be opposed, simply on political ideology.

Perjury is perjury, assault is assault, and murder is murder.  This lopsided attempt to ignore one crime and then to persecute another is what is going to kill the trust of the judicial system in this country.  And the more of this I see done, the more I start to wonder if some people are right, that this country is to far gone to save. 

Spare me.  What I said was that based on what I heard back then it seemed like the purjery people were talking about was based on him saying "I didn't have sex".  I said very clearly that I was talking about the difference between being EVASIVE about your personal business and LYING.  AND I said the same thing applies to Karl Rove and anybody else, so why are you even bringing up this nonsense about "your side" and "the other side"?  That's just deliberately lying about what I specifically said.

I know people like to use there messages on this board to look for excuses to rant on and on about whatever, but it gets silly.  At least read what people say and don't make up stuff to make excuses for self-riteous outrage.  This kind of delibarate twisting of what people say that you are doing is just as harmful as anything you are talking about.

To be fair, maybe you just misinterpreted the end of my comment.  I am not saying PERJURY is ok for some people and not for others.  I am saying that to me there is a big difference between being EVASIVE and MISLEADING about your personal life and being EVASIVE and MISLEADING about National Security stuff and your job as President.  Yes, I do stand by that opinion.  But that has nothing to do with one party or another anyway.  I'm not a Democrat anyway.

The question isn't about purjury, its about revealing the identity of a CIA officer, which is illegal, and of disclosing classified info to unauthorized people, also a crime, not to mention damaging national security (which could be considered treason). 

And I still don't know who Mushroom is talking about when he says "they" say something is okay for some people and not for other people.  I think people get into that thinking because they look at some whole group that they have a problem with, and act like the whole group thinks and acts the same.  They think well, THE LIBERALS thought Bill Clinton's crap was fine, but now they are complaining about Rove.  What hipocrites.  Or THE CONVERSATIVES thought Clinton was a criminal, but now they are making excuses for Rove.  What hipocrites. 

Of course it doesn't make sense if you think that way.  It reminds me of how people say "why can't those people make up their minds if they want to be called Asian or Oriental?"  Well, maybe It's because SOME people like "Asian" and better and SOME people are ok with "Oriental".  THOSE PEOPLE are not all the same.

And I still don't know who Mushroom is talking about when he says "they" say something is okay for some people and not for other people.  I think people get into that thinking because they look at some whole group that they have a problem with, and act like the whole group thinks and acts the same.  They think well, THE LIBERALS thought Bill Clinton's crap was fine, but now they are complaining about Rove.  What hipocrites.  Or THE CONVERSATIVES thought Clinton was a criminal, but now they are making excuses for Rove.  What hipocrites. 

Of course it doesn't make sense if you think that way.  It reminds me of how people say "why can't those people make up their minds if they want to be called Asian or Oriental?"  Well, maybe It's because SOME people like "Asian" and better and SOME people are ok with "Oriental".  THOSE PEOPLE are not all the same.

I prefer Asian to Oriental.  Asia is a place, "Oriental" means east to an Englishman.

Actually, the Arkansas Board of Law did not agree.  He was disbarred, and had to pay a $25,000 fine because of this case of Perjury.  He will not be able to reapply to get his law license restored until next year.  And before he can reapply, he will have to undergo a "peer review" first.

And for those that do not believe it still, he plead No Contest to charges of Perjury to the Arkansas State Law Board in 2001.  They disbarred him, revoked his license to practice law, and de-certified him to practice as a Judge.  That is in addition to his fine.

Now he still believes the fantasy that he did not commit perjury?  And once again, the question is "why ignore one case, and push hard for another"?  Remember, in events like this I could not care what party the person belongs to.  I do not care if they are Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Socialist, Fascist, Marxist, or Anarchist.  To me, a crime is a crime, and actions have consiquences.  What I am against however is partaisan attacks.

Myself, I do not care if President Clinton did a group of Teachers in the Lincoln Bedroom.  But if he lies under oath when he is being sued for a past indescretion, then he lied under oath.  All he had to do is what Hillary did, and say "I don't recall".  (Note: This was a Civil Trial, so the "5th Ammendment" plea was not open to him, that can only be done in a Criminal Trial)


Yet I'm sure the conservatives still have no problem with asking questions outside the charges being investigated.  If you're going to bring up the Clinton thing, remember that Kenneth Starr was appointed to discover whether the Clintons were involved with a real estate fraud years before elected president.  When questioned about a crime, you're not required to answer questions about other crimes.  Ever wonder, despite the failure of the impeachment vote, why criminal charges were never succesfully prosectued against Clinton?  Even though Congress tried to impeach him and failed, he could have still been found guilty of the crime of perjury.  Unfortunately, the little fact that the questions were out of line prevented them from being admissable in court.

Clinton didn't fight the charges to have him disbarred.  So what? Do you think it was worth the effort to try and retain his license when he would clearly never practice law again?

What I find amazing, is that people will cry about how Clinton got away with lying, but then defend Rove and Scooter.  Clinton didn't blow the cover of dozens of CIA operatives in the field by blowing the cover of one agent in a national paper for political payback.  He lied about something he shouldn't have been questioned on in the first place.  Rove not only violated several laws regarding security clearances, he also lied about it.  His perjury is in direct relation to the crime.  Comparing it to Clinton is a total distraction, because there is no possible way, anyone, anywhere, could claim what Rove did was ethical or legal.

Yet I'm sure the conservatives still have no problem with asking questions outside the charges being investigated.  If you're going to bring up the Clinton thing, remember that Kenneth Starr was appointed to discover whether the Clintons were involved with a real estate fraud years before elected president.  When questioned about a crime, you're not required to answer questions about other crimes.  Ever wonder, despite the failure of the impeachment vote, why criminal charges were never succesfully prosectued against Clinton?  Even though Congress tried to impeach him and failed, he could have still been found guilty of the crime of perjury.  Unfortunately, the little fact that the questions were out of line prevented them from being admissable in court.

Clinton didn't fight the charges to have him disbarred.  So what? Do you think it was worth the effort to try and retain his license when he would clearly never practice law again?

What I find amazing, is that people will cry about how Clinton got away with lying, but then defend Rove and Scooter.  Clinton didn't blow the cover of dozens of CIA operatives in the field by blowing the cover of one agent in a national paper for political payback.  He lied about something he shouldn't have been questioned on in the first place.  Rove not only violated several laws regarding security clearances, he also lied about it.  His perjury is in direct relation to the crime.  Comparing it to Clinton is a total distraction, because there is no possible way, anyone, anywhere, could claim what Rove did was ethical or legal.


Ha!  Scooter and Rove, sounds like a funky electronica act from Australia!
Anyway, the Republicans made no bones about being out there to "get" Clinton.  Rep. John Mica (R. Fla) said it best when he said on the House floor: "We are here to nail the little bugger down."  Mica's remark was immediately followed by the banging of the gavel and, "Order! the gentleman will be seated."  That was 1995, year one of the Newt Deal.  We don't say it, we do it!  Sheesh!
Imagine what if Nancy Pelosi said that about Karl Rove.  There would be hell toupe!  The Republican Noise Machine would make sure of that!

Ha!  Scooter and Rove, sounds like a funky electronica act from Australia!
Anyway, the Republicans made no bones about being out there to "get" Clinton.  Rep. John Mica (R. Fla) said it best when he said on the House floor: "We are here to nail the little bugger down."  Mica's remark was immediately followed by the banging of the gavel and, "Order! the gentleman will be seated."  That was 1995, year one of the Newt Deal.  We don't say it, we do it!  Sheesh!
Imagine what if Nancy Pelosi said that about Karl Rove.  There would be hell toupe!  The Republican Noise Machine would make sure of that!


Fact is, the Dems haven't said anything close and the Repugs ARE raising holy he11

They think well, THE LIBERALS thought Bill Clinton's crap was fine, but now they are complaining about Rove.  What hipocrites.  Or THE CONVERSATIVES thought Clinton was a criminal, but now they are making excuses for Rove.  What hipocrites. 


I am a Conservative, and I am making no excuses whatsoever.  If he commited a crime, he needs to pay for it.  And from what I have heard, he never named the agent.  He just let slip enough for the reporters to figure out who it was.  This may be foolish, but it probably is not a crime.  However, comming out and naming the agent might be a crime.  And I am not saying the reporters should be charged.  But they should take in consideration the consequences when they make public things that might be tival to National security.

I believe it very possible that Karl Rove did commit perjury.  And unless he had a damned good reason to do so (for example, he went to the CIA and they instructed him to lie in order to contain the damage) he should have to pay for it.  But unless there is some kind of documented "amnisty", he is guilty.

I do not believe "2 wrongs make a right".  I am not saying that "they ignored Clinton, so they should ignore this also".  I just think that those that scream for his head for perjury are rather foolish, when they ignored a case of perjury earlier.

quote author=Mushroom link=topic=11722.msg541031#msg541031 date=1122585337]
I am a Conservative, and I am making no excuses whatsoever.

Hey Dude, you can chill out.  I'm not talking about you.  I said what some CONSERVATIVES and some LIBERALS say, so how can you possibly take that personal.  Relax.

I am a Conservative, and I am making no excuses whatsoever.  If he commited a crime, he needs to pay for it.  And from what I have heard, he never named the agent.  He just let slip enough for the reporters to figure out who it was.  This may be foolish, but it probably is not a crime.  However, comming out and naming the agent might be a crime.  And I am not saying the reporters should be charged.  But they should take in consideration the consequences when they make public things that might be tival to National security.

I believe it very possible that Karl Rove did commit perjury.  And unless he had a darned good reason to do so (for example, he went to the CIA and they instructed him to lie in order to contain the damage) he should have to pay for it.  But unless there is some kind of documented "amnisty", he is guilty.

I do not believe "2 wrongs make a right".  I am not saying that "they ignored Clinton, so they should ignore this also".  I just think that those that scream for his head for perjury are rather foolish, when they ignored a case of perjury earlier.

I think you're practicing wishful thinking.  Karl Rove is a well-known vindictive SOB.  He blew Plame's cover to get back at Joe Wilson.  Remember the way Rove & co. defamed John McCain in the primaries?  Suddenly it didn't matter that McCain was a bona-fide war hero and a Republican, all that mattered was destroying the man.  For example, they spread a rumor that McCain fathered an illegimate black child. 
John McCain was locked up in the Hanoi Hilton while Bush and Rove were out snorting booger sugar and bird-dogging bimbos!!! 

All the Republican talk about honoring those who make sacrifices martial for our country goes out the window when it comes to Low-Blow Rove.  Why woud anybody doubt a guy who would badmouth Senator McCain would "out" a CIA agent?  The man has no honor, no decency, just a drive to win at any cost.  The very scorn the sanctimonious Right always tars the Clintons with is more true of Bush and Rove than anybody else in recent memory!

It's curious the way McCain forgave terrible-two.  Maybe it was sheer political pragmatisim on McCain's part.  Maybe McCain learned how to forgive complete and total @ssh()les as a spiritual survival technique back in Hanoi!
8)

I believe it very possible that Karl Rove did commit perjury.  And unless he had a darned good reason to do so (for example, he went to the CIA and they instructed him to lie in order to contain the damage) he should have to pay for it.  But unless there is some kind of documented "amnisty", he is guilty.


Considering that the CIA released a statement a week ago to the effect that Valarie Plume was most definitely undercover and was not "fair game" as the neocon talking heads have been claiming, I'd say that's wishful thinking at th best.

I prefer Asian to Oriental.  Asia is a place, "Oriental" means east to an Englishman.



Me too, unless I know exact what nationality-Japanese, Koran, etc. Just like European, or African.


Sorry to get off topic a bit.




Cat